Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

gisgp

by io.github.uponex
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

epsg_suggest

Suggest the correct UTM EPSG code to project a WGS84 lon/lat into for accurate metric measurements (buffer/area/distance).

Returns JSON {ok, epsg, utm_zone, hemisphere, name, warning}.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "lon": "<lon>",
      "lat": "<lat>"
    },
    "name": "epsg_suggest"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latYes
lonYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists output fields but does not disclose behavioral traits like internet dependency, performance, or warning conditions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, zero waste. Efficient and clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple suggestion tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers core functionality and output format. Could mention limitations (e.g., only UTM zones).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds minimal context beyond parameter names: it clarifies input is in WGS84 lon/lat but does not specify ranges, units, or coordinate order.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool suggests UTM EPSG codes for projecting WGS84 lon/lat, with a specific purpose (accurate metric measurements). It distinguishes from sibling tools like convert_coordinates or reproject_geojson.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when needing UTM projection for metric measurements but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All gisgp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources